An initiative to assess and improve the resources and patient care processes used among Chest Wall Injury Society collaborative centers study (CWIS-CC2).

BACKGROUND: Over the last two decades, the acute management of rib fractures has changed significantly. In 2021, the Chest Wall injury Society (CWIS) began recognizing centers that epitomize their mission as CWIS Collaborative Centers. The primary aim of this study was to determine the resources, surgical expertise, access to care, and institutional support that are present among centers. METHODS: A survey was performed including all CWIS Collaborative Centers evaluating the resources available at their hospital for the treatment of patients with chest wall injury. Data about each chest wall injury center care process, availability of resources, institutional support, research support, and educational offerings were recorded. RESULTS: Data were collected from 20 trauma centers resulting in an 80% response rate. These trauma centers were made up of 5 international and 15 US-based trauma centers. Eighty percent (16 of 20) have dedicated care team members for the evaluation and management of rib fractures. Twenty-five percent (5 of 20) have a dedicated rib fracture service with a separate call schedule. Staffing for chest wall injury clinics consists of a multidisciplinary team: with attending surgeons in all clinics, 80% (8 of 10) with advanced practice providers and 70% (7 of 10) with care coordinators. Forty percent (8 of 20) of centers have dedicated rib fracture research support, and 35% (7 of 20) have surgical stabilization of rib fracture (SSRF)-related grants. Forty percent (8 of 20) of centers have marketing support, and 30% (8 of 20) have a web page support to bring awareness to their center. At these trauma centers, a median of 4 (1-9) surgeons perform SSRFs. In the majority of trauma centers, the trauma surgeons perform SSRF. CONCLUSION: Considerable similarities and differences exist within these CWIS collaborative centers. These differences in resources are hypothesis generating in determining the optimal chest wall injury center. These findings may generate several patient care and team process questions to optimize patient care, patient experience, provider satisfaction, research productivity, education, and outreach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level V.

Recent Advances in Rib Plating.

Rib fractures are a common injury in blunt trauma and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Recent advances in surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) have led to better patient outcomes for those with highly unstable complex rib fractures, as well as those with less severe injuries. This result has been due in part to the expansion of indications for repair, as well as the development of new hardware systems to address a variety of fracture patterns and injuries. This joint advancement of operator techniques, outcomes research, and industry development has brought SSRF to the forefront of rib fracture management and challenged non-operative paradigms. The future of repair is now shifting focus, as surgeons develop minimally invasive approaches and challenge manufacturers to develop new systems, instruments, and materials to address increasingly complex fracture patterns. These expansions promise to make SSRF an increasingly effective form of management for traumatic rib fractures.

Interobserver agreement for the Chest Wall Injury Society taxonomy of rib fractures using computed tomography images.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, a universal nomenclature for rib fractures was proposed by the international Chest Wall Injury Society taxonomy collaboration. The purpose of this study is to validate this taxonomy. We hypothesized that there would be at least moderate agreement, regardless of the observers' background. METHODS: An international group of independent observers evaluated axial, coronal, and sagittal computed tomography images on an online platform from 11 rib fractures for location (anterior, lateral, or posterior), type (simple, wedge, or complex), and displacement (undisplaced, offset, or displaced) of rib fractures. The multirater κ and Gwet's first agreement coefficient (AC1) were calculated to estimate agreement among the observers. RESULTS: A total of 90 observers participated, with 76 complete responses (84%). Strong agreement was found for the classification of fracture location ( κ = 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.97]; AC1, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.81-0.88]), moderate for fracture type ( κ = 0.46 [95% CI, 0.32-0.59]; AC1, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.45-0.55]), and fair for rib fracture displacement ( κ = 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.54], AC1, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.34-0.42]). CONCLUSION: Agreement on rib fracture location was strong and moderate for fracture type. Agreement on displacement was lower than expected. Evaluating strategies such as comprehensive education, additional imaging techniques, or further specification of the definitions will be needed to increase agreement on the classification of rib fracture type and displacement as defined by the Chest Wall Injury Society taxonomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test or Criteria; Level IV.